Appellate Advocates (Rebekah J. Pazmino of counsel), for appellant. Queens County District Attorney (Johnnette Traill, William H. Branigan, and Lucy E. Pannes of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Jeffrey Gershuny, J.), rendered July 26, 2022. The judgment, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, upon convicting defendant, upon a plea of guilty, of aggravated driving while intoxicated, imposed sentence, and also convicted defendant, upon a plea of guilty, of operating an unregistered motor vehicle, and imposed sentence thereon.

ORDERED that the judgment of conviction, insofar as appealed from, is modified, on the law, by vacating so much of the judgment as convicted defendant of operating an unregistered motor vehicle and dismissing that count of the accusatory instrument; as so modified, the judgment of conviction, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.

Defendant was charged in an accusatory instrument with driving while ability impaired (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [1]), driving while intoxicated (per se) (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [2]), aggravated driving while intoxicated (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [2-a] [a]), driving while intoxicated (common law) (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [3]), operating a motor vehicle without valid insurance (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 319 [1]), operating a motor vehicle without a light illuminating the rear license plate (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 375 [2] [a] [*2][4]), operating an unregistered motor vehicle (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 401 [1] [a]), and operating a motor vehicle without properly displayed license plates (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 402 [1]). He subsequently pleaded guilty to aggravated driving while intoxicated, operating a motor vehicle without valid insurance, operating a motor vehicle without a light illuminating the rear license plate, operating an unregistered motor vehicle, and operating a motor vehicle without properly displayed license plates in full satisfaction of the accusatory instrument. The Criminal Court (Jeffrey Gershuny, J.) imposed sentence thereon, including imposing a $2,500 fine for the aggravated driving while intoxicated conviction. On appeal, defendant challenges the facial sufficiency of the count charging him with operating an unregistered motor vehicle, contending that the accusatory instrument did not contain any factual allegations pertaining thereto. He also challenges the sentence imposed upon his conviction of aggravated driving while intoxicated as being excessive.

"A valid and sufficient accusatory instrument is a nonwaivable jurisdictional prerequisite to a criminal prosecution" (People v Case, 42 NY2d 98, 99 [1977]; see People v Dumay, 23 NY3d 518, 522 [2014]; People v Dreyden, 15 NY3d 100, 103 [2010]). Thus, the facial insufficiency of an accusatory instrument constitutes a jurisdictional defect which is not forfeited by a defendant's guilty plea (see People v Thiam, 34 NY3d 1040 [2019]; Dreyden, 15 NY3d at 103; People v Konieczny, 2 NY3d 569, 573 [2004]). Here, since defendant expressly waived the right to be prosecuted by information, the challenged count of the accusatory instrument must be evaluated under the standards that govern a misdemeanor complaint (see Dumay, 23 NY3d at 524), which is sufficient on its face when it alleges facts of an evidentiary character supporting or tending to support the charge (see CPL 100.40 [4] [a]; 100.15 [3]) and provides reasonable cause to believe that the defendant committed the crime charged (see CPL 100.40 [4] [b]; People v Dumas, 68 NY2d 729, 731 [1986]). While the law does not require that the accusatory instrument contain the most precise words or phrases most clearly expressing the charges, the offense and factual bases therefor must be sufficiently alleged (see Konieczny, 2 NY3d at 575). "So long as the factual allegations of an information give an accused notice sufficient to prepare a defense and are adequately detailed to prevent a defendant from being tried twice for the same offense, they should be given a fair and not overly restrictive or technical reading" (People v Casey, 95 NY2d 354, 360 [2000]; see Konieczny, 2 NY3d at 575). Where, as here, a defendant pleads guilty to one or more of the counts actually charged in a multi-count accusatory instrument, and, on appeal, raises a jurisdictional challenge, he or she need not challenge the facial sufficiency of all of the counts contained in the accusatory instrument at the time the defendant entered the guilty plea; rather, he or she need only challenge the facial sufficiency of the actual count or counts to which he or she pleaded guilty (see People v Mason, 62 Misc 3d 75 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2019]; see also Dumay, 23 NY3d 518). Here, as defendant correctly contends, and the People concede, there were no facts alleged in the accusatory instrument pertaining to the vehicle's registration. Consequently, so much of the judgment as convicted defendant of operating an unregistered motor vehicle must be vacated and that count of the accusatory instrument dismissed (see People v Ortega, 75 Misc 3d 139[A], 2022 NY Slip Op 50587[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2022]; People v Brissett, 62 Misc 3d 149[A], 2019 NY Slip Op 50271[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th [*3]Jud Dists 2019]).

As a general rule, a defendant who has been sentenced according to the terms of a bargained-for plea and sentencing agreement will not be heard to complain that the sentence was unduly harsh or excessive (see People v Galvez, 72 AD3d 838 [2010]; People v Ubiles, 59 AD3d 572 [2009]; People v Rowe, 74 Misc 3d 132[A], 2022 NY Slip Op 50152[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2022]; People v Cheme, 70 Misc 3d 129[A], 2020 NY Slip Op 51519[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2020]). Under the circumstances presented, we find no basis to deviate from that rule. The $2,500 fine imposed upon defendant's conviction of aggravated driving while intoxicated did not constitute an abuse of sentencing discretion or a failure to observe sentencing principles, and defendant has not demonstrated the existence of mitigating or extraordinary circumstances warranting a modification of the sentence as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1193 [1] [b] [i]; People v Farrar, 52 NY2d 302 [1981]; People v Vega, 73 AD3d 1218 [2010]; People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]; Rowe, 2022 NY Slip Op 50152[U]; Cheme, 2020 NY Slip Op 51519[U]).

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction, insofar as appealed from, is modified by vacating so much of the judgment as convicted defendant of operating an unregistered motor vehicle and dismissing that count of the accusatory instrument.

MUNDY, J.P., BUGGS and OTTLEY, JJ., concur.